My thoughts is Apple is building out their delivery system in the huge data centres that Apple has been building all over the country. It must be for far more than just Siri and iCloud services, my thought is it is for a TV type experience and service.

Four million units and the revenue they bring are probably pocket change for Apple and I do believe that Apple is the only company with the might to see this through and make everyone follow their way.

If Apple is able to bring a la carte channels to the masses, they will dominate the Earth in a way never seen before. If I could pay $2 to $5 per month for individual channels, that are presented like apps on my Apple TV, my happiness would know no bounds.

The cable companies will never give up control of the interface. They saw what happened with the cell phone providers; and while it may eventually be good for them (as it was for the cell phone companies; just look at their record profits to see how much it hurt them) the business transformation will be painful and will cost a lot of people inside these companies their jobs. Big companies are against change, and cable is still big enough and monopolistic enough to make Apple play by their rules.

Case in point: Microsoft's STB business is much bigger and much better developed than Apple's. You just don't know about it because they don't brand anything on the interface. AT&T U-Verse runs on Microsoft's IPTV platform (Mediaroom), as do many European IPTV services.

It's also about content: big cable (or companies intimately tied to big cable) controls the content. I've maintained that the reason Apple was building up such massive cash reserves before Steve Jobs died was they were going to make a play for TV by buying a controlling stake in Disney to essentially force them to license ESPN and the other Disney/ABC cable properties to Apple. Jobs could have made it work because he was a media guy, and was really well connected there. I don't think Tim Cook can do it, and I think he agrees; hence Apple started shedding the cash in the form of dividends after Jobs died.

Apple TV is pipe dream at least in the normal sence. Cable Companies are in bed with big content (often outright owned). Big content hates Apple for what it did to music biz, and there is no way will they let Apple to have a part of that pie. Without content, Apple is in the same boat as everyone else. (Even worse, because Apple doesnt actually manufacture LCD panels/components if they wanted to compete on pq or any other technical merits).

"According to a new report by Bloomberg, Apple is running into bumps in the road in its negotiations with media companies, including who will control the interface and who will sell the set-top box."

Hahaha. Saw that coming miles away. Apple will fail just like Google and Microsoft did before it. TV is a content problem, not a technology problem.

And when you have people like the co-president of HBO that think internet based content is simply a "passing fad", then you add ideology on top of problems with technology. I have the feeling that most of the higher-ups at the media companies are simply going to see Apple TV as throwing a dog a bone rather than the future or service.

If Apple is able to bring a la carte channels to the masses, they will dominate the Earth in a way never seen before. If I could pay $2 to $5 per month for individual channels, that are presented like apps on my Apple TV, my happiness would know no bounds.

Edit: A bit of hyperbole, but you get the point.

In my case this is not hyperbole at all. This is exactly how i feel, and it really would turn the industry inside out as subscribers migrated en masse. The cable companies are hell bent on maintaining the status quo despite their arcane methods. The commercial model for television needs to stop writhing in misery and just die. A la carte channel/content subscriptions are the only way to create actual competition between content creators/providers. At the moment there is no real competition. If you want to watch Walking Dead you have to pay for AMC along with a plethora of other channels, most of which are all crap all the time, as part of a bundle designed specifically to sell you crap along with the good stuff.

If I could pay for the 3 to 5 channels I would actually watch, or better yet, watch individual shows from any channel on demand for a low monthly fee, I would sign up immediately.

I'm looking at you, HBO. Why should I have to buy a premium cable subscription laden with tripe just so I can stream your content? Why can't I subscript to JUST your stream like i do Netflix?

I wonder who, if anyone, Apple has hired from the Cable/Satellite industry to open doors for them. The barriers to entry to get product approval within Cable are immense. Microsoft tried a number of years ago, spent a significant amount of money, and failed massively and completely.

One big problem Apple will face is the user guide, the listing of channels and programs for live TV. As anyone with a Cable settop knows, these guides often feature ads for on-demand content (usually PPV events and movies) in the margin. In recent years, Comcast has experimented with running "interactive" ads during local advertising insert segments; showing a trailer for an on-demand film with a prompt allowing the user to see the full trailer by simply hitting the "OK" button on the Cable settop remote. Integrating features like these, even if possible and practical, are not in Apple's interest as they would prefer you view programming which earns Apple revenue.

I could probably write an entire story about this, including some more detailed information from my 15 years working in the Cable TV equipment supplier market. Long story short, though, Apple (just like Roku and others) brings nothing to the table that benefits Cable and Satellite operators. In turn, this means operators have no incentive to cooperate with Apple, just as they had no incentive to cooperate with Microsoft in the previous decade.

Apple could explore "buying into" the market - providing settops near cost through an exclusive arrangement with a particular provider. The problem there is there are only two with nationwide footprints - DirecTV and Dish. Dish is currently a mess, so much so it could be had for a let less than Apple's cash on hand. However, for IP-based content to reach the home at speeds which users are accustomed you also need a wire into the home - and the DSL lines used by DirecTV in bundles vary widely in speed and even availability.

Add in the fact Apple likes to sell products at high gross margins, I don't see them becoming ubiquitous in the settop market.

If Apple is able to bring a la carte channels to the masses, they will dominate the Earth in a way never seen before. If I could pay $2 to $5 per month for individual channels, that are presented like apps on my Apple TV, my happiness would know no bounds.

Edit: A bit of hyperbole, but you get the point.

This will never happen. Give up your dreams now.

There are maybe 5 companies that own 95% of the cable channels out there. They absolutely insist on selling their channels as a package to consumers. This is because they sell their channels to their advertisers as a package. They license their content from production companies as a package. Production companies can't fund their productions without commitments from the channels/studios on broadcast and syndication schedules.

To make a la carte channels even possible, you would have to undo the economics of the entire industry. While it may happen over time, the nature and circumstances of content will need to change first. Apple made it work for music, but the key difference here is that production costs for music are low. Production costs for video are much higher; and you can't make a scripted series unless you have the money up front to pay camera men, sound guys, riggers, actors, writers, etc. You need up-front money to do that, and the current network syndication system works. To make syndication work, you have to be able to fund new shows with old ones. The economics just don't line up to do that on a per-channel basis the way the industry is set up now.

With the cash Apple has at hand, I am pretty sure they can play along with content companies greediness. Choose the weakest one, strike exclusive deals, show how it boosted this company results after a few months and wait for the others to rally the cash cow. Wasn't what Apple did with AT&T?

If Apple is able to bring a la carte channels to the masses, they will dominate the Earth in a way never seen before. If I could pay $2 to $5 per month for individual channels, that are presented like apps on my Apple TV, my happiness would know no bounds.

Edit: A bit of hyperbole, but you get the point.

This will never happen. Give up your dreams now.

There are maybe 5 companies that own 95% of the cable channels out there. They absolutely insist on selling their channels as a package to consumers. This is because they sell their channels to their advertisers as a package. They license their content from production companies as a package. Production companies can't fund their productions without commitments from the channels/studios on broadcast and syndication schedules.

To make a la carte channels even possible, you would have to undo the economics of the entire industry. While it may happen over time, the nature and circumstances of content will need to change first. Apple made it work for music, but the key difference here is that production costs for music are low. Production costs for video are much higher; and you can't make a scripted series unless you have the money up front to pay camera men, sound guys, riggers, actors, writers, etc. You need up-front money to do that, and the current network syndication system works. To make syndication work, you have to be able to fund new shows with old ones. The economics just don't line up to do that on a per-channel basis the way the industry is set up now.

Yeah, unfortunately I'm aware of the bleak reality. It's just that Apple, with their market position, cash hoard, and public goodwill, is the only company that would even have a chance, however tiny, of actually putting us on that path.

If Apple is able to bring a la carte channels to the masses, they will dominate the Earth in a way never seen before. If I could pay $2 to $5 per month for individual channels, that are presented like apps on my Apple TV, my happiness would know no bounds.

Edit: A bit of hyperbole, but you get the point.

This will never happen. Give up your dreams now.

There are maybe 5 companies that own 95% of the cable channels out there. They absolutely insist on selling their channels as a package to consumers. This is because they sell their channels to their advertisers as a package. They license their content from production companies as a package. Production companies can't fund their productions without commitments from the channels/studios on broadcast and syndication schedules.

To make a la carte channels even possible, you would have to undo the economics of the entire industry. While it may happen over time, the nature and circumstances of content will need to change first. Apple made it work for music, but the key difference here is that production costs for music are low. Production costs for video are much higher; and you can't make a scripted series unless you have the money up front to pay camera men, sound guys, riggers, actors, writers, etc. You need up-front money to do that, and the current network syndication system works. To make syndication work, you have to be able to fund new shows with old ones. The economics just don't line up to do that on a per-channel basis the way the industry is set up now.

I completely agree - so with that said, what is Apple TV really going to bring me? What is left to overhaul (that's realistic)?

One thing that needs to be remembered in any article about Apple's purported TV experiments: there's no real hurry here. No one else is likely to crack the cable/content hegemony any time soon, so there's no risk of coming late to the party (unlike with mobile phones back in the mid-2000s.) Apple can afford to wait this out until the time is right.

With the cash Apple has at hand, I am pretty sure they can play along with content companies greediness. Choose the weakest one, strike exclusive deals, show how it boosted this company results after a few months and wait for the others to rally the cash cow. Wasn't what Apple did with AT&T?

They don't have near enough money to make that work. Basically, Apple would have to subsidize every small channel the content company had as part of their bundles.

The only way this really works is if Apple buys a cable company outright - and then willing kills off all of the less successful channels - or operates them at a loss (somehow that doesn't seem likely...).

If Apple is able to bring a la carte channels to the masses, they will dominate the Earth in a way never seen before. If I could pay $2 to $5 per month for individual channels, that are presented like apps on my Apple TV, my happiness would know no bounds.

Edit: A bit of hyperbole, but you get the point.

This will never happen. Give up your dreams now.

There are maybe 5 companies that own 95% of the cable channels out there. They absolutely insist on selling their channels as a package to consumers. This is because they sell their channels to their advertisers as a package. They license their content from production companies as a package. Production companies can't fund their productions without commitments from the channels/studios on broadcast and syndication schedules.

To make a la carte channels even possible, you would have to undo the economics of the entire industry. While it may happen over time, the nature and circumstances of content will need to change first. Apple made it work for music, but the key difference here is that production costs for music are low. Production costs for video are much higher; and you can't make a scripted series unless you have the money up front to pay camera men, sound guys, riggers, actors, writers, etc. You need up-front money to do that, and the current network syndication system works. To make syndication work, you have to be able to fund new shows with old ones. The economics just don't line up to do that on a per-channel basis the way the industry is set up now.

Yeah, unfortunately I'm aware of the bleak reality. It's just that Apple, with their market position, cash hoard, and public goodwill, is the only company that would even have a chance, however tiny, of actually putting us on that path.

Maybe the recent trend of people cutting their cable TV subscriptions in favor of far more usable and inexpensive streaming subscriptions will have some affect on that. This is the same type of purported chicken and egg scenario keeping us on fossil fuels. Unfortunately, Apple probably is the only entity besides Google that could convince the industry to begin such a drastic shift. However, I expect I will suffer severe cramping should I decide to keep my fingers crossed.

"Raise your hand if you think Apple is demanding full control over the UI."

This is what upsets me about Apple. I understand being in control of the UI, but I have a feeling the negotiations are due to a stubbornness on Apple's part. 100% control or bust.

Given the horrible service from cable TV providers in the US, having an option to have something designed by Apple would be a big upgrade. If we let the cable companies control the UI, we'd have more of what we already have. Which is pretty sucky, in my humble opinion.

If Apple is able to bring a la carte channels to the masses, they will dominate the Earth in a way never seen before. If I could pay $2 to $5 per month for individual channels, that are presented like apps on my Apple TV, my happiness would know no bounds.

Edit: A bit of hyperbole, but you get the point.

This will never happen. Give up your dreams now.

There are maybe 5 companies that own 95% of the cable channels out there. They absolutely insist on selling their channels as a package to consumers. This is because they sell their channels to their advertisers as a package. They license their content from production companies as a package. Production companies can't fund their productions without commitments from the channels/studios on broadcast and syndication schedules.

To make a la carte channels even possible, you would have to undo the economics of the entire industry. While it may happen over time, the nature and circumstances of content will need to change first. Apple made it work for music, but the key difference here is that production costs for music are low. Production costs for video are much higher; and you can't make a scripted series unless you have the money up front to pay camera men, sound guys, riggers, actors, writers, etc. You need up-front money to do that, and the current network syndication system works. To make syndication work, you have to be able to fund new shows with old ones. The economics just don't line up to do that on a per-channel basis the way the industry is set up now.

Yeah, unfortunately I'm aware of the bleak reality. It's just that Apple, with their market position, cash hoard, and public goodwill, is the only company that would even have a chance, however tiny, of actually putting us on that path.

Maybe the recent trend of people cutting their cable TV subscriptions in favor of far more usable and inexpensive streaming subscriptions will have some affect on that. This is the same type of purported chicken and egg scenario keeping us on fossil fuels. Unfortunately, Apple probably is the only entity besides Google that could convince the industry to begin such a drastic shift. However, I expect I will suffer severe cramping should I decide to keep my fingers crossed.

Google failed if you remember. GoogleTV's browser was widely blocked by content companies. The content problem cannot go away until local news, weather and live sports are dealt with. The latter is close with MLB, NFL and ESPN on the Internet. The former are no where near to starting the process of breaking away from the delivery mechanism. Local weather keeps people safe by warning them of hurricanes and tornados and storms. No Internet service gives you the detail that your local station gives you in a time of a storm. WeatherChannel.com cannot replace the local weather channel just yet. If you think it can, you've not lived in an area where weather can kill. Until then cord cutting is a minority of people and won't have an impacton cable large enough to get them to reconsider anything.

One last food for thought, Insight was bought by TWC. 700,000+ subscribers lost NFL Network and the Red Zone Channel. People still stuck with TWC. TWC directly took away service and didn't see a major shift in customers. They hurt their customer base(pay the same, less channels). Do you really think a few people cutting the cord is a concern for a company that is willing to take away services to close to a million people in one switch?

There are usually about 40 channels that make up basic cable and that usually runs about 20 bucks or so. Make ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX $1 each and each of the other basic cable channels $0.50 each. If you just want the 4 network stations and PBS, that will be $4.50 please. Make all the channels that make up the various digital cable packages $1-$1.50 each. The premium stations like Starz, HBO, etc you charge $5-$10 and you get their whole slew of stations when you pick them up.

Imagine you click the HBO app and decide you want to see what is playing at 8PM. Now HBO has what, about 10 station? The guide will not bother breaking down which HBO is showing what, it will just list everything you can watch at that time, it's run times, if it is already in progress, etc. When you pick it it just routes to the correct HBO station w/o you having to worry about 10 HBO buttons on your screen.

I've been enjoying my 2011 Apple TV, but at the moment everything we watch is courtesy of either Netflix or Piratebay. I would be happy to pay for service that feels like it is worth it to me. Currently cable does not fit that bill.

If Apple is able to bring a la carte channels to the masses, they will dominate the Earth in a way never seen before. If I could pay $2 to $5 per month for individual channels, that are presented like apps on my Apple TV, my happiness would know no bounds.

Edit: A bit of hyperbole, but you get the point.

This will never happen. Give up your dreams now.

There are maybe 5 companies that own 95% of the cable channels out there. They absolutely insist on selling their channels as a package to consumers. This is because they sell their channels to their advertisers as a package. They license their content from production companies as a package. Production companies can't fund their productions without commitments from the channels/studios on broadcast and syndication schedules.

To make a la carte channels even possible, you would have to undo the economics of the entire industry. While it may happen over time, the nature and circumstances of content will need to change first. Apple made it work for music, but the key difference here is that production costs for music are low. Production costs for video are much higher; and you can't make a scripted series unless you have the money up front to pay camera men, sound guys, riggers, actors, writers, etc. You need up-front money to do that, and the current network syndication system works. To make syndication work, you have to be able to fund new shows with old ones. The economics just don't line up to do that on a per-channel basis the way the industry is set up now.

Saves me $120 a month to purchase the shows I want on iTunes in the mean time (without commercials).

(snip)No Internet service gives you the detail that your local station gives you in a time of a storm. WeatherChannel.com cannot replace the local weather channel just yet. If you think it can, you've not lived in an area where weather can kill. Until then cord cutting is a minority of people and won't have an impacton cable large enough to get them to reconsider anything.

I live in an area where weather can kill.I've not had access to local weather TV in the past 15 years. (I guess I COULD rig up ATA antenna if I wanted, but I get more than enough detail from Weather.com, Weather.gov, NOAA alerts on my phone, etc.

I would LOVE to see a la carte, and I believe that Apple is one of the only companies with a shot at it (due to the cash pile), but I'm not optimistic. Cable companies are some of the most backwards-thinking entities in business, and it isn't going to change any time soon I'm afraid. Until then, I'll watch my Netflix, my Hulu, and use Airplay to stream anything else that I want to my AppleTV if I can't get it any other way.

If Apple is able to bring a la carte channels to the masses, they will dominate the Earth in a way never seen before. If I could pay $2 to $5 per month for individual channels, that are presented like apps on my Apple TV, my happiness would know no bounds.

Edit: A bit of hyperbole, but you get the point.

This will never happen. Give up your dreams now.

There are maybe 5 companies that own 95% of the cable channels out there. They absolutely insist on selling their channels as a package to consumers. This is because they sell their channels to their advertisers as a package. They license their content from production companies as a package. Production companies can't fund their productions without commitments from the channels/studios on broadcast and syndication schedules.

To make a la carte channels even possible, you would have to undo the economics of the entire industry. While it may happen over time, the nature and circumstances of content will need to change first. Apple made it work for music, but the key difference here is that production costs for music are low. Production costs for video are much higher; and you can't make a scripted series unless you have the money up front to pay camera men, sound guys, riggers, actors, writers, etc. You need up-front money to do that, and the current network syndication system works. To make syndication work, you have to be able to fund new shows with old ones. The economics just don't line up to do that on a per-channel basis the way the industry is set up now.

Yeah, unfortunately I'm aware of the bleak reality. It's just that Apple, with their market position, cash hoard, and public goodwill, is the only company that would even have a chance, however tiny, of actually putting us on that path.

Maybe the recent trend of people cutting their cable TV subscriptions in favor of far more usable and inexpensive streaming subscriptions will have some affect on that. This is the same type of purported chicken and egg scenario keeping us on fossil fuels. Unfortunately, Apple probably is the only entity besides Google that could convince the industry to begin such a drastic shift. However, I expect I will suffer severe cramping should I decide to keep my fingers crossed.

Google failed if you remember. GoogleTV's browser was widely blocked by content companies. The content problem cannot go away until local news, weather and live sports are dealt with. The latter is close with MLB, NFL and ESPN on the Internet. The former are no where near to starting the process of breaking away from the delivery mechanism. Local weather keeps people safe by warning them of hurricanes and tornados and storms. No Internet service gives you the detail that your local station gives you in a time of a storm. WeatherChannel.com cannot replace the local weather channel just yet. If you think it can, you've not lived in an area where weather can kill. Until then cord cutting is a minority of people and won't have an impacton cable large enough to get them to reconsider anything.

One last food for thought, Insight was bought by TWC. 700,000+ subscribers lost NFL Network and the Red Zone Channel. People still stuck with TWC. TWC directly took away service and didn't see a major shift in customers. They hurt their customer base(pay the same, less channels). Do you really think a few people cutting the cord is a concern for a company that is willing to take away services to close to a million people in one switch?

All I need and want is an product that allows me to select programs to record and play them back whenever I want. From and OTA antenna. A DVR, add Netflix, Amazon Instant, Hulu, YouTube and HBO Go and I'll have everything I need to watch whatever I want legally.

Of course I'd much rather not have separate apps to deliver the content from the last four services. I'd much rather have a single indexed, searcahble and (ideally) categorized interface to the content available aggregated from all services. Allow me to find ShowX and see which service I subscribe to that has that available and watch it.

I certainly don't think Apple is the only company able to deliver the former. The latter is (probably) never going to happen. At any rate I'd much prefer Google's solution to the former problem because it's much more likely to be an open platform, unlike Apple.

Maybe the recent trend of people cutting their cable TV subscriptions in favor of far more usable and inexpensive streaming subscriptions will have some affect on that. This is the same type of purported chicken and egg scenario keeping us on fossil fuels. Unfortunately, Apple probably is the only entity besides Google that could convince the industry to begin such a drastic shift. However, I expect I will suffer severe cramping should I decide to keep my fingers crossed.

Wouldn't make a dent even if you could -- the cable companies will just raise rates on data plans to compensate. Imagine a scenario where a broadband connection capable of streaming HD video costs $130/mo, and you can add a cable TV subscription for $20 on top of that. How the price breaks down is irrelevant.

In the vast majority of the US, cable is your only option for broadband if you want more than 6 mbit from ADSL. At the end of the day, they control the pipe and their goal is to get you to pay them as much money as they can for what comes down the pipe.

All I need and want is an product that allows me to select programs to record and play them back whenever I want. From and OTA antenna. A DVR, add Netflix, Amazon Instant, Hulu, YouTube and HBO Go and I'll have everything I need to watch whatever I want legally.

Windows Media Center + an Xbox already does all of this. You can even watch cable TV if you get a cablecard tuner (and they're not that expensive.) Throw in something like Remote Potato and you can watch the content from any device, anywhere.

Sounds like the cable companies want to make sure the hardware isn't totally controlled by one maker, apple. Apple just wants $$$ on the hardware and locking everyone to them. They in a sense deserve it, but it isn't really good being locked into one vendor either.

Imagine having a cable box go awry and the tech support was solely done via apple with them having no control over the cable side of it.

Yep. As much as I hate Apple's walled garden, I like it better than the current content-providers' walled gardens of UI and control. In this case I'd be comfortable betting on the devil I don't know instead of the devil I do.

"According to a new report by Bloomberg, Apple is running into bumps in the road in its negotiations with media companies, including who will control the interface and who will sell the set-top box."

Hahaha. Saw that coming miles away. Apple will fail just like Google and Microsoft did before it. TV is a content problem, not a technology problem.

Correct.It is always about the Content MAFIAA or the Big Telcos/Cable Companies.I personally would never own an Apple TV Setup.Nor do I foresee wanting to own any kind of TV that would force you to Connect to the Internet to use it.Nor do I think I would want to just Connect a TV to the Internet as what I am doing will probably be monitored in some way.I definately would never own any kind of TV with built in Webcam that can film you.

"According to a new report by Bloomberg, Apple is running into bumps in the road in its negotiations with media companies, including who will control the interface and who will sell the set-top box."

Hahaha. Saw that coming miles away. Apple will fail just like Google and Microsoft did before it. TV is a content problem, not a technology problem.

Correct.It is always about the Content MAFIAA or the Big Telcos/Cable Companies.I personally would never own an Apple TV Setup.Nor do I foresee wanting to own any kind of TV that would force you to Connect to the Internet to use it.Nor do I think I would want to just Connect a TV to the Internet as what I am doing will probably be monitored in some way.I definately would never own any kind of TV with built in Webcam that can film you.

Whenever you use digital cable TV, they already know exactly what you watch, when you switch, even if you use the DVR. Plus they offer a lousy UI and poor programming content. It just doesn't get any better than this!

I'd love to see apple do the same thing with the Apple TV to cable providers that they did with the iPhone to Cell providers. Cable providers like to add all sorts of things that really aren't for the customer but are there to allow them to control the customers. If apple can bust that and provide a good DVR that allows me the best of both worlds it would be great. I still believe that there is no perfect solution for DVR's. You are always forced to make a compromise. If you go with what ever box your provider gives out you are stuck with what ever UI they design (usually crappy), what ever size(s) of hd's are available,etc but you get full access to all channels and all of their on demand content. If go with a third party DVR like Tivo or Windows Media Center you get to choose your UI (at least between the couple of options that are available), HD size and at least potentially the option to have lots of tuners but you have a harder time getting premium channels and access to on-demand content.

To make a la carte channels even possible, you would have to undo the economics of the entire industry. While it may happen over time, the nature and circumstances of content will need to change first. Apple made it work for music, but the key difference here is that production costs for music are low. Production costs for video are much higher; and you can't make a scripted series unless you have the money up front to pay camera men, sound guys, riggers, actors, writers, etc. You need up-front money to do that, and the current network syndication system works. To make syndication work, you have to be able to fund new shows with old ones. The economics just don't line up to do that on a per-channel basis the way the industry is set up now.

Yeah, I recall an exec from HBO recently saying the reason shows like Game of Thrones are even possible for them to consider are the multi-year multi-million contracts they get from cable companies that gives them a stable income base with which to plan, produce, and fund new shows.

Still, I think it would be kind of neat to see a Kickstarter-esque movement to bypass the old ways and finance new show/movie ideas, but the funding requirements would be crazy and probably wouldn't scale very well without advertiser support. Small runs of simple shows could work, but I'd wager nothing on the scale of "Friends" would be possible if all the principle actors were suddenly stars wanting $2 million/episode, or "Game of Thrones" if the set/FX/CGI costs went through the roof.

Not to mention the blowback if a bunch of people buy into a pilot and then the show goes to shit (story-wise). I think people would feel entitled to the show they want, leaving creators to bend to the whims of the masses ("How dare you kill <favorite character>! I'm paying for this show, do as I say!"). It remains to be seen how the big Kickstarter games (Wasteland 2, etc) will handle things if they end up as a sub-par product. I can envision at least someone who shelled out big $$$ being incensed enough to try and sue whomever they feel is responsible, justified or not. Caveat emptor, I suppose.